1. Principle 1: IPC makes omissions punishable, provided they are illegal.

An act of
omission attracts criminal liability only when a person is placed under duty to act
recognised by the criminal law and he with the requisite blameworthy mind, failed to
fulfill it.

Principle 2: Section 300, IPC states that if a man does an act which is imminently
dangerous that in all probability it must cause death, if such death is caused, then he is
guilty of murder.

Facts: Mr. Ratanlal’s relations with his wife were strained. He with the help of his
mother deliberately and systematically starved his wife and denied her food for days
together. She was prevented from leaving the house. Owing to continuous
undernourishment and starvation, she was reduced to a mere skeleton. One day she
managed to escape from the house as he forgot to lock her room before leaving the
house. She got herself admitted to a hospital. The doctor, who found her seriously ill,
informed the police. Decide.

A) Mr. Ratanlal will not be guilty of attempt to murder as he did not intend to kill his
wife.
B) Mr. Ratanlal will be guilty of attempt to murder as he intended to kill his wife.
C) Mr. Ratanlal will not be guilty as withholding food doesn’t amount to any offence.
D) Mr, Ratanlal will be guilty of attempt to murder as the death would have resulted
by withholding food to her.

Answer-D
Law does not require an intention to cause death. The act of withholding food
would have caused death surely though gradually.

2. Principle 1: Section 304A of IPC states that whoever causes the death of any person
by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both.

Principle 2: In order to impose criminal liability under Section-304A, IPC, it is

essential that death is the direct result of the rash and negligent act of the accused.

Facts: Harris was a chemist in charge of the injection department of Sanitax

Chemical Industries Limited, Baroda. The company prepared glucose in normal
saline, a solution containing dextrose, distilled water and sodium chloride. The
sodium chloride sometimes contains quantities of lead nitrate, with a permissible limit
(for lead nitrate) of five parts in one million. The saline solution which was supplied
by this company was dangerous to human life. As per the drugs Act, 1940 and the
rules made thereunder, a chemist of a chemical company has to give a batch number
to every lot of bottles containing preparation of glucose in normal saline. Harris was
 responsible for giving batch number. He gave a single batch number to four lots of
saline. The bottles sold by the company were purchased by different hospitals, nursing
homes, etc, and were administered to several patients of whom twelve patients died.
Prabhkaran was the chief analyst of the testing laboratory that time. Families of the
deceased filed the suit against Prabhakaran. He contended that had Harris given
separate batch numbers to each lot as required under the rules, he would have
separately analysed each lot and the lot which contained heavy deposits of lead nitrate
would have been rejected. Decide.

A) Harris would be liable as deaths were the direct consequences of his negligence.
B) Harris would not be liable as deaths were not the direct consequences of his
negligence.
C) Prabhkaran would not be liable as Harris had been negligent in performing his
duty.
D) None of the above.

Answer-B
For an offence under section 304A, it is essential that death is the direct result of the
rash and negligent act of the accused. In this case, Harris’ negligence was not the
direct and efficient cause of deaths.

3. Principle 1: Cheating is an offence which is committed by the person who cheats

another person and thereby induces the deceived to deliver any property.

Principle 2: A person commits the offence of ‘attempt to commit a particular offence

when he intends to commit that particular offence and he having made preparations
and with the intention to commit an offence, does as act towards its commission, such
an act need not be penultimate act towards the commission of that offence but must be
an act during the course of committing that offence.

Facts: Sudhir Kumar Mukherjee was an employee in charge of soda lime department
of M/s Gluconate Limited, Calcutta, and Sham Lal Shaw was the supplier of lime
stone to the said firm. It appears that four bags of lime stone were needed every day.
The procedure in respect of the supply was that Shaw used to bring the bags to Sudhir
and present a chalan to him. One day, Sudhir in collusion with the limestone dealer
attempted to show false delivery of limestone to his company by forging the
signatures of his superiors on the invoice, after which it would be presented for
payment. However, at the time when he was caught he had not himself affixed his
signature and stamp on the chalan which was necessary for the supplier to claim
payment for supply of limestone from the company. Will Sudhir be liable?

A) Yes, Sudhir will be liable for attempt to cheating as his acts were way past the
preparation limit.
 B) No, Sudhir will not be liable for attempt to cheating as he didn’t himself affix the
signature and stamp on the chalan.
C) Yes, Sudhir will be liable for attempt to cheating as if he had not be caught, he
would have affixed his signature and stamp on the chalan.
D) Yes, Sudhir will only be liable for conspiracy and not for attempt to cheating.

Answer-A
The acts of the Sudhir had crossed the stage of preparation and entered into the
realm of attempt. Therefore, he will be liable for committing the offence of
attempt to cheating.

4. Principle: The law authorizes a man who is under a reasonable apprehension that his
life is in danger or his body in risk of grievous hurt to inflict death upon his assailant
either when the assault is attempted or directly threatened.

Facts: Lakhan belonged to the vankar caste. The area in which the vankars lived was
called vankarwas. The chamaras, a schedule caste, were not permitted to pass through
the street in the vankarwas area. When a woman called Shantaben passed through the
street in the vankawras area, it was objected to by the vankars. Lakhan kicked her in
the abdomen. Shantaben went to the temple where the chamars had gathered for
bhajan and narrated the incident. On hearing this, about seven to eight chamars who
were still at the temple proceeded towards the house of the Lakhan, agitated about the
assault on Shantaben. Lakhan, in anticipation that the chamaras would come, came to
the eastern end of the street of vankarwas along with other vankars. He was also
armed with a gun. There was also pelting of stones between the parties but it was very
little. It didn’t cause any injury to anyone. Lakhan shot dead two chamars. He pleaded
that he did so in self defence because the chamars were hurling stones. Decide.

A) Lakhan will not be liable as chamars were hurling stones and he did so in his self
defence.
B) Lakhan will be liable as he provoked chamars by kicking Shantaben in her
abdomen.
C) Lakhan will be liable as there was no reasonable apprehension of death or
grievous hurt.
D) Lakhan will not be liable as Shantaben could have gone to the police.

Answer- C
None of the vankars party was injured in the stone pelting. So, there could not
have been any reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt to the Lakhan
from the chamars.

5. Principle 1: Whenever an offence has been committed whoever harbours or conceals

a person whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the offender, with the
intention of screening him from legal punishment, shall be punished under IPC.
 Principle 2: Whoever harbours or protect an enemy of the state of India shall be
punished with death.

Facts: Narang, a doctor treats a wounded man and makes him well, after which he
leaves the hospital of Narang. Later it emerges that the wounded man was actually an
enemy combatant, who had been injured in combat with the Indian forces. Narang
was awarded death penalty. Is the sentence of death appropriate in this case?

A) No, because death penalty is given only to hardened criminals and in the instant
case, narang is not a criminal.
B) No, because death penalty is awarded only in the rarest cases and this penalty is
too harsh in the instant case.
C) No, because Narang did not harbour or protect the wounded man but he merely
treated him.
D) No because whatever Narang did, he did not do it knowingly.

Answer-C
The act of providing treatment, that too unknowingly, does not amount to an act of
harbouring or protecting an enemy. Thus Narang is not liable.

6. Principle 1: Whoever, with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause,

wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any
property or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or
diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits Mischief

Principle 2: Guilty intention is an essential ingredient for offence of Mischief.

Facts: Raman and Ankush were friendly neighbours. Ankush has a storage plant.
Raman was celebrating Lohri at his place. Due to gusty wind and negligence of
Raman, the fire spread to the plant of Ankush. This resulted in the plant catching fire
and the goods stored there got completely destroyed. Raman, who is a good friend and
neighbour, tried to extinguish the fire but fails to do. Raman made every possible
attempt to limit the fire but it completely destroyed the plant of his neighbour. Is
Raman liable?

A) Raman is liable as the act done caused injury to Ankush.

B) Raman is liable as his negligence is apparent and due to negligence Ankush
suffered losses.
C) Raman is not liable as he didn’t have the intention to cause any harm to the
property of Ankush.
D) Raman is not liable as the act that he did was an inevitable accident.

Answer-C
 Since Raman did not have any wrong intention and the fire reached to Ankush’s
plant by the reason of gusty wind. Therefore he is not liable.

7. Principle: Whoever by force compels or by deceitful means induces any person to go

from any place is said to abduct that person.

Facts: Manisha was returning to her home after attending her dance classes. Suddenly
she hears a male voice telling him to move in another direction at the gun point.
Manisha started moving in the direction as told to her by the assailant who was
holding a gun in his hand. Raghav, who was coming from the opposite direction saw
the Manisha being escorted by the assailant, fired shots in the air. Hearing the shots,
the assailant fled away leaving Manisha alone. Later on, the assailant was identified
as Girish Khan and charged for abduction. Decide.

A) Girish Khan will be liable for abduction as he compelled Manisha to move in

another direction against her will.
B) Girish Khan will be liable for abduction as he was holding a gun in his hands.
C) Girish Khan will not be liable for abduction because he fled away from the scene
after hearing the shots fired by Raghav.
D) None of the above.

Answer-A
Self explanatory.

8. Principle: Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt to any person being a public
servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or
deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public
servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in
the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished.

Facts: Sham Sundar was a deputy sarpanch of Ramiya village. He tried to enter the
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) bus from the driver's cabin which
was not occupied by the driver who was standing near the bus. Driver's cabin is meant
for the driver. Driver tried to prevent him from entering into his cabin. Despite the
attempt of the driver to stop Sham Sundar from entering his cabin, Sham Sundar
abused the driver and gave him a kick in his lower abdomen which resulted in
grievous injury. Whether Sham Sundar will be liable to cause grievous injury to the
public officer in discharging of his duty?

A) He will not be liable under this offence as driver was not a public servant.
B) He will not be liable as driver was standing outside the bus and was not acting in
the due discharge of his duty.
C) He will be liable as when driver tried to prevent him from trespassing into his
cabin, he was acting under due discharge of his duty.
 D) None of the above.

Answer-C
Driver was a public servant as he was the driver of Tamil Nadu state transport
corporation and he was acting in discharge of his duty when he tried to prevent
Sham Sundar from trespassing into his cabin.

9. Principle 1: When a person is entrusted with property and he dishonestly

misappropriates or converts that property to his own use, then that person is liable for
committing criminal breach of trust.

Principle 2: Dishonest misappropriation takes place not when has innocently come
into the possession of a thing but when by a subsequent change of intention, or from
the knowledge of some new fact with which the party was not previously acquainted,
he keeps it, after which the retaining becomes wrongful and fraudulent.

Facts: Ramu who was the servant of Anshul, was entrusted with Anshul’s money for
the purpose of purchasing grain from Jaskaran. He left for Jaskaran with the money
and went off to Harshit without giving any information to Anshul of his departure;
subsequently, he gave false account of it. He was arrested at Harshit’s place and the
entire money was found in his possession. It was contended for him that he could not
be convicted for criminal breach of trust, as the money had been found intact with him
and there was no evidence that he had converted it to his own use. Whether Ramu will
be liable for criminal breach of trust?

A) Yes, Ramu will be liable as he should not have gone to Jaskaran’s place.
B) Yes, Ramu will be liable as he intended to deprive Anshul of his money and he
gave false account of it.
C) No, Ramu will not be liable as he has not converted the money to his own use yet.
D) No, Ramu is not liable for criminal breach of trust but for criminal
misappropriation.

Answer-B
Ramu will be liable for criminal breach of trust as his master Anshul entrusted
him with money which he misappropriated. As per principle 2, misappropriation
consisted not in any actual expenditure of the money but in the mental act or
intent to deprive the master of his property and keeping the money by giving false
account of it.

10. Principle 1: Taking away a movable property dishonestly with the intent to
dispossess a person of such object without his consent amounts to theft.

Principle 2: Dispossession is said to occur if a person is denied of enjoying the

benefit of an object without his consent.
 Principle 3: Consent means and includes any express or implied permission granted
to a person for the specified usage.

Principle 4: Implied permission is said to be granted if a person by actions or

utterances conveys his acceptance of usage by the other person.

Facts: Dhruv decided to develop a very high efficiency vehicle engine with double
fuel efficiency than the market standards. Sameer promised to financially aid Dhruv.
Dhruv completed his research after 3 years and discovered a new engine with almost
double the fuel efficiency. However it failed to deliver similar results after reaching
temperature of 150 Centigrade and above. Many car manufacturers rejected the model
on this ground alone. Dhruv got adamant and decided not to make any further change
in the engine. Sameer was keen to take technology to other scientists to improve the
same. One day Sameer took the engine model without permission of Dhruv and gave
it to scientific research firm for improvement. The scientist plugged the gap in the
technology and engine started to give double fuel efficiency. Sameer broke this news
to Dhruv and gave him the suggestions to be carried in the model. Dhruv was so upset
that he filed a complaint against Sameer alleging theft. Decide.

A) Sameer will be liable as he dispossessed Dhruv of his engine model without his
consent.
B) Sameer will not liable as he being the part owner of the engine model cannot be
held guilty of theft.
C) Sameer will be liable was Dhruv was categorically against making any further
change in the engine.
D) Sameer will not be liable as the element of dishonesty was absent in the present
case.

Answer-D
There was no dishonest intention as he sent the model for improvement in good
faith.

11. Principle: Performance of an existing legal duty does not amount to a valid
consideration.

Facts: Mr. Patel obtained a court judgment against Mr. Lalit where he agreed to settle
the debt by the payment of Rs. 50,000 immediately and the balance in instalments.
Mr. Patel agreed not to take any further action on the judgment. However, all
judgments bear interest from the date of judgment. Mr. Lalit paid the last instalment
but Mr. Patel sued him for interest. Decide.
 A) Mr. Patel is entitled to file the suit as the payment of the debt with costs is a legal
duty and hence not a valid consideration for the promise to take no further action
on the judgment.
B) Mr. Patel is entitled to file the suit as a contract barring the right to obtain judicial
remedy is against public policy and therefore invalid.
C) Mr. Patel is not entitled to file the suit as the contract entered into between him
and Mr. Lalit was a valid one and Mr. Lalit has performed his part of the same.
D) Mr. Patel is not entitled to file the suit as the judgment was obtained by a
settlement and hence there was no legal duty to pay the amount; such payment
was voluntary and not imposed by the court.

Answer-A
The payment of the debt is not a valid consideration as it was just performance of
an existing legal duty as per the judgment and would not serve the purpose of
being a valid consideration for the contract between the two.

12. Principle 1: An agreement executed under undue influence of other party is not
enforceable in the eyes of law.

Principle 2: Undue influence is established when one of the parties is in a position to

dominate the other party’s will and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage.

Facts: Lakshmi, a proficient thread painting expert, worked as household help for
Charu. Charu not only paid Lakshmi a handsome salary but also took care of her
husband’s job in his husband’s factory. One day, Charu asked Lakshmi to sell all her
paintings for a lump sum amount of thousand rupees. Lakshmi refused stating that the
paintings are worth ten times the price offered. Charu expressed her displeasure by
stating that she might ask her husband to fire Lakshmi’s husband out of her husband’s
factory. Lakshmi agreed to hand over the paintings but finally refused just a day
before exhibition. Decide whether Lakshmi will be liable for the breach of contract?

A) Yes, as Lakshmi breached a legal binding contract.

B) No, as the agreement was vitiated by undue influence.
C) No, as the offer made by Charu was abuse of labour and against public policy.
D) Yes, as Charu was indirectly supporting her financially as her husband was
employed in their factory.

Answer-B
As Charu was in a position to dominate Lakshmi’s will which she used for her
advantage.

13. Principle 1: Agreement in restraint of trade is considered against public policy and
therefore void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act.
 Principle 2: When the Plaintiff possesses some confidential information or trade
secret, which needs to be secured for a long term in the interest of economic
development, then agreement cannot be considered as the agreement in restraint of
trade.

Facts: Ravi was employed by the Jet airways aircraft company as a pilot. Jet Airways
had organized a necessary secretive training for the Ravi and other pilots. The training
can be obtained by any pilot by paying the requisite training charges. Even the pilots
in other Airlines have to undergo the same training. In consideration, Ravi agreed and
undertook that during a period of 7 years from the date of completion of training in
India and abroad and on resuming actual services with the Jet Airways as First
Officer, he would not accept employment, similar in nature, either in full time or part
time with any other employer. One day, Ravi resigned from the services to join other
airlines as they offered him more income. Jet Airways had invoked the negative
covenant clause along with other stipulated remedies under the agreement. Jet
Airways moves to the court and seeks an order of permanent injunction restraining
Ravi from taking up any employment until the completion of 7 years, with any other
Airline on the basis of secretive training provided by the Jet Airways. Ravi contends
that the negative covenant clause is void as the agreement is in restraint of trade
Decide whether the agreement is in restraint of trade?

A) The negative covenant clause is valid as the restraint of 7 years in any event is not
too long. Hence, agreement is not in restraint of trade.
B) The negative covenant clause is void as training is not the well guarded secret of
Jet Airways. Hence, agreement is in restraint of trade.
C) The negative covenant clause is valid as training is the well guarded secret of Jet
Airways. Hence, agreement is not in restraint of trade.
D) None of the above.

Answer-B
In this case, training cannot be considered as well-guarded secret of Jet airways as
the pilots in other Airlines have to undergo the same training and thus cannot be
restrained under the negative covenant clause.

14. Principle 1: When a breach of contract takes place the aggrieved party is entitled to
receive from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or
damage caused to him by breach.

Principle 2: Compensation can be claimed for any damage or the loss which naturally
arises in the usual course of events.
 Principle 3: Compensation is not provided for any any remote or indirect damages or
losses.

Principle 4: While estimating the loss or damage for the breach of the contract, the
means if any provided to the aggrieved party for overcoming the inconveniences
occurred due to the non-performance of the contract must be taken into consideration.

Facts: M Ltd. contracts with Shanti with Shanti Traders to make and deliver certain
machinery to them by 30.6.2019 for Rs. 11.50 lakhs. Due to labour strike, M Ltd
could not manufacture and deliver the machinery to Shanti Traders. Later, Shanti
Traders procured the machinery from another manufacturer for Rs. 12.75 lakhs.
Shanti Traders was also prevented from performing a contract which it had made with
Zenith Traders at the time of their contract with M Ltd. and were compelled to pay
compensation for breach of contract. M Ltd. had no knowledge about the contract of
Shanti Traders, for supply of the contracted machinery to Zenith Traders on the
specified date. Shanti Traders filed the suit against M Ltd. for the breach of contract.
Decide.

A) M Ltd. is required to compensate for the loss of Rs.12.75 lakhs which had arisen
due to the non-performance of the contract by the specified date.
B) M Ltd. is not required to pay any compensation as M Ltd could not manufacture
due to labour strike.
C) M Ltd. is also required to pay the compensation which Shanti Traders, had to pay
to Zenith traders for breach of contract.
D) M Ltd. is required to compensate for the loss of Rs.1.25 lakhs which had arisen
due to the non-performance of the contract by the specified date.

Answer-D
Applying the above given principles, M Ltd. is required to compensate for the loss
of Rs.1.25 lakhs (i.e. Rs.12.75 – Rs.11.50 = Rs.1.25 lakhs). If M Ltd. had
knowledge about the contract of Shanti Traders, for supply of the contracted
machinery to Zenith Traders on the specified date if so, M Ltd. is also required to
pay the compensation which Shanti Traders, had to pay to Zenith traders for
breach of contract, otherwise M Ltd. is not liable for compensation (principle 3).

15. Principle 1: An agreement without consideration is void.

Principle 2: As per Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, it is not necessary
that consideration must be moved from promisor only, thus it may be moved by any
other person including a stranger to the transaction.

Facts: Mr. Ramamurthy transferred his house to his daughter Meera by way of gift.
The gift deed, executed by Mr. Ramamurthy, contained a direction that Meera shall
 pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 per month to Netra (the sister of Mr. Ramamurthy).
Consequently Meera executed an instrument in favour of Netra agreeing to pay the
said sum. Afterwards, Meera refused to pay the sum to Netra saying that she is not
liable to Netra because no consideration had moved from her. Decide whether Meera
is liable to pay the said sum to Netra.

A) Meera is not liable to pay the said sum to Netra as no consideration moved from
Netra.
B) Meera is liable to pay the said sum to Netra as the consideration need not
necessarily move from the party itself.
C) Meera is liable to pay the said sum to Netra as she executed an instrument in
favour of Netra agreeing to pay the said sum.
D) Meera is not liable to pay the said sum to Netra as it was a gift deed from her
father.

Answer-B
The consideration need not necessarily move from the party itself, it may move
from any person. Thus Meera is liable to pay the said sum to Netra and cannot
deny her liability on the ground that consideration did not move from Netra.

16. Principle 1: A contract, which at the time it was entered into, was capable of being
performed may subsequently become impossible to perform or unlawful. In such
cases the contract becomes void. This is known as the doctrine of supervening
impossibility.

Principle 2: An anticipatory breach is a breach of contract before the time of

performance.

Principle 3: In anticipatory breach of contract, the promisee can choose not to cancel
the contract but treat it as an operative and wait until the time of performance has
passed before holding the other party responsible for the damages caused due to non-
performance. However, he will need to keep the contract alive for the benefit of all
parties involved.

Facts: Mr. Ramaswamy of Chennai placed an order with Mr. Shah of Ahmadabad for
supply of Urid Dhall on 10.11.2016 at a contracted price of Rs.40 per kg. The order
was for the supply of 10 tonnes within a month's time viz. before 09.12.2016. On
04.12.2016 Mr. Shah wrote a letter to Mr. Ramashwwamy stating that the price of
Urid Dhall was sky rocketing to Rs.50 per. kg. and he would not be able to supply as
per original contract. The price of Urid Dhall rose to Rs.53 on 09.12.16. Ramaswamy
repudiated the contract on 04.12.2016. Decide.

A) Mr. Shah is not liable as increase in price of urid dhall amounts to supervening
impossibility.
 B) Mr. Shah is liable to pay damages to Mr. Ramaswamy. The amount of damages
shall be 10 tons @ Rs.13 per kg.
C) Mr. Shah shall be liable to pay damages to Mr. Ramaswamy. The amount of
damages shall be 10 tons @ Rs. 10 per kg.
D) Mr. Shah would not have been liable if some supervening impossibility has arisen
after 09.12.2016.

Answer-C
Ramaswamy repudiated the contract on 04.12.2016. The amount of damages shall
be 10 tons @ Rs. 10 per kg (i.e. difference between the contract price and price as
on 04.12.2016). Also, increase in price of urid dhall does not amount to
supervening impossibility.

17. Principle: A person, who is interested in the payment of money which another is
bound by law to pay, and who therefore pays it, is entitled to be reimbursed by the
other.

Facts: Yashwant Sinha holds agricultural land in Gujarat on a lease granted by Hari
Lal Singh, the owner. The land revenue payable by Hari Lal Singh to the Government
being in arrear, his land is advertised for sale by the Government. Under the Revenue
law, the consequence of such sale will be termination of Yashwant Sinha's lease.
Yashwant Sinha. in order to prevent the sale and the consequent termination of his
own lease, pays the Government, the sum due from Hari Lal Singh. Decide whether
Hari Lal Singh is liable to make good to Yashwant Sinha, the amount so paid?

A) Hari Lal Singh is bound to make good to Yahwant Sinha the amount so paid as
Yashwant Sinha has made the payment of lawful dues in which he had an interest.
B) Hari Lal Singh is not bound to make good to Yahwant Sinha the amount so paid as
it was a voluntarily act.
C) Hari Lal Singh is bound to make good to Yahwant Sinha the amount so paid as
Yashwant Sinha has made the payment of lawful dues.
D) None of the above.

Answer-A
Yashwant Sinha paid the dues to prevent termination of his own lease. Thus, he is
entitled to get the reimbursement from Hari Lal Singh.

18. Principle 1: A unilateral mistake is when only one party to the contract is under a mistake.
In such a case the contract will not be void.

Principle 2: When Unilateral Mistake is as to the nature of the contract, identity of the
person contracted with or regarding the quality of promise, then even a unilateral
mistake of fact can lead to a void or voidable agreement.

Facts: A woman by falsely misrepresenting her to be wife of a well-known Baron (a

millionaire), obtained two pearl necklaces from a firm of jewellers on the pretext of
 showing them to her husband before buying. She pledged them with a broker, who in
good faith paid her Rs.1,00,000. A suit was filed by the jeweller against the broker.

A) Broker does not need to return the necklace to the jeweller as he has a good title.
B) Broker needs to return the necklace to the jeweller as the contract between the
jeweller and the woman was not void.
C) Broker needs to return the necklace to the jeweller as the contract between the
jeweller and the woman was void.
D) Broker does not need to return the necklace to the jeweller as the contract between
the jeweller and woman was valid.

Answer-C
Broker did not get a good title and hence he must return the goods. There was no
contract between the jeweller and the woman as jeweller never intended to
contract with her.

19. Principle 1: Any agreements in restraint of trade, marriage or legal proceedings are
void agreements.

Principle 2: One of the essential elements of a valid contract is that it must not be the
one which the law declares either to be void or illegal.

Facts: Mr. Seth an industrialist has been fighting a long drawn litigation with Mr.
Raman another industrialist. To support his legal campaign Mr. Seth enlists the
services of Mr. Chetan, a legal expert stating that an amount of Rs.5 lakhs would be
paid, if Mr. Chetan does not take up the brief of Mr. Raman. Mr. Chetan agrees, but at
the end of the litigation Mr. Seth refuses to pay. Decide whether Mr. Chetan can
recover the amount promised by Mr. Seth under the provisions of the Indian Contract
Act, 1872.

A) Yes, Mr. Chetan can recover the money as he had fulfilled his promise by not
taking up the brief of Mr. Raman.
B) No, Mr. Chetan cannot recover the money as the agreement was in the restraint of
legal proceedings.
C) No, Mr. Chetan cannot recover the money as the offer was not made with an
intention of creating legal relationship.
D) No, Mr. Chetan cannot recover the money as the agreement was in the restraint of
trade.

Answer-D
The term trade includes lawful profession. Thus, the agreement was in the restraint
of trade and hence void.
20. Principle 1: In the case of misrepresentation by the other party, the aggrieved party is
in a position to avoid or cancel the contract.

Principle 2: The right to rescind the contract is lost by the aggrieved party, if after
becoming aware of the misrepresentation, if starts taking advantage under the contract.

Facts: Sohan induced Suraj to buy his motorcycle saying that it was in a very good
condition. After taking the motorcycle, Suraj complained that there were many defects
in the motorcycle. Sohan proposed to get it repaired and promised to pay 60% cost of
repairs. Suraj agreed to his offer but after a few days the motorcycle did not work at
all. Now Suraj wants to rescind the contract. Decide.

A) Suraj can rescind the contract because it was executed under misrepresentation.
B) Suraj cannot rescind the contract because he accepted the proposal of Sohan to get
it repaired.
C) Suraj can rescind the contract because motorcycle did not work even after the
repair.
D) Suraj cannot rescind the contract because Sohn has paid 60% cost of repair.

Answer-B
Suraj has lost the right to rescind the contract because he agreed to use the defected
bike.

21. Principle 1: A person cannot claim damages for injury from a risk which he
voluntarily undertook as according to the defence of volenti non fit injuria.

Facts: A Public Sector Undertaking is operating buses for its employees across the
city. The buses are easily distinguishable from public buses and carry a board saying,
“Only for employees”. Mr. Prakash however mistakenly gets onto the bus along with
the crowd of employees. A little while later, due to the driver’s negligence, there is an
accident, and Mr. Prakash, along with some others, is injured. Can Mr. Prakash claim
damages from PSU?

A) Mr. Prakash cannot claim damages as he was not a valid passenger and thus driver
does not owe him duty of care.
B) Mr Prakash cannot claim damages for injury as he voluntarily undertook the risk.
C) Mr. Prakash can claim damages even if he is not valid passenger as the bus driver
has a duty of care towards all the passengers.
D) Mr. Prakash can claim damages as driver of the bus didn’t stop him from entering
the bus.

Answer: C
This is not the case of volenti non fit injuria because travelling in a bus is not a
risky activity and person who consents to travel in a bus does not consent to injury
by accident.
 (Instructions: Questions 22 to 25 have common set of principles and facts. Apply the
specified principles and answer the questions.)

Principle 1: The duty of care is breached where the defendant fails to meet the
standards of a reasonable person owing the duty.

Principle 2: In order for the defendant to owe a duty of care, there must be a
relationship of proximity between the parties, the harm must be reasonably
foreseeable, and it must be fair, reasonable and just to impose a duty.

Principle 3: There must not be an intervening act by another which breaks the chain
of causation.

Principle 4: If the type of damage was foreseeable, then the defendant is liable for it
in full, even if the extent of the damage was greater than expected. This means that if
the victim has an ‘eggshell skull’, i.e. an unusual vulnerability which results in them
suffering greater than expected damage, the defendant is nevertheless liable for the full
extent.

Facts: Molly is a single mother. She takes her daughter Rhonda (a two year old
infant) to a local playground. While lighting a cigarette, Molly starts talking with
another young parent, Dilbert. Molly is distracted by Dilbert’s good looks and gritty
charm. Meanwhile, Rhonda starts to wander over to the road.

Dilbert notices a possible catastrophe and rushes out after Rhonda. Dilbert just
manages to save Rhonda from being run over by Bob, who is driving a van within the
speed limit and quite safely. However, Dilbert has too much forward momentum and
collides with Bob’s van. Dilbert is seriously injured. Bob skids off the road and
crashes into some playground equipment. Luckily, no children are using the
equipment. Laura, driving beyond the speed limit behind Bob, sees the above-related
events and puts her foot down hard on the brakes. Laura’s car skids on an oil slick and
crashes into a tree. Some distance behind the tree was Leonard. Leonard thought that
Laura’s car might hit him and he started running away screaming ‘Oh Lord, don’t take
me now!’ Leonard has an underlying personality disorder and develops a paranoid
fear of going out into the street. As a result, he loses his job and his livelihood.

The accident involving Leonard is witnessed by Sherry, Rhonda’s grandmother, who

is also at the park. Sherry suffers from a brief fright, but believes that she will be
alright. However, she later develops post- traumatic stress disorder as a result of this
event, combined with the news that Rhonda barely escaped a serious injury. She had
not seen the incident involving Rhonda herself, because she had been busy setting out
the picnic lunch.

22. Will Dilbert have a successful claim in negligence against Molly?

A) No, Dilbert voluntarily took on the risk of being injured.
B) No, Dilbert broke the chain of causation by choosing to try to save Rhonda.
C) Yes, Molly’s failure to supervise Rhonda resulted in Rhonda being put in danger.
 D) Can’t say.

Answer-C
Molly has breached her duty of care by becoming sufficiently distracted to allow
Rhonda to wander off. Duty and breach are therefore established, as is damage, as
Dilbert suffered physical harm. She can’t use the defence of volenti non fit injuria
as rescuer is not considered t have voluntarily accepted to the risks.

23. Will Laura have a successful claim in negligence against Molly?

A) Yes, Molly had set into motion the chain of events that led to Bob crashing and
Laura hitting the tree.
B) No, Laura’s speeding was a break in the chain of causation and hence it is a case
of contributory negligence.
C) Yes, Molly could foresee the potential presence of an oil slick.
D) Yes, Laura’s speeding was not a break in the chain of causation and hence it is not
a case of contributory negligence.

Answer-B
Laura is said to be driving beyond speed limit. Molly will get the defence of
contributory negligence as Laura’s lack of care for her own safety is deemed
responsible for them.

24. Will Leonard be likely to succeed against Molly?

A) No, Laura’s speeding was an intervening act.
B) Yes, there was proximity in relation to Rhonda’s accident.
C) Yes, Laura’s speeding was not an intervening act.
D) None of the above.

Answer-A
Self-explanatory.

25. Will Laura be liable to Sherry?

A) No, there was the lack of relationship in respect of witnessing Leonard’s accident
and proximity in relation to Rhonda’s accident.
B) Yes, the injury was reasonably foreseeable.
C) Yes, Sherry has a close tie of love and affection for Leonard.
D) No, Molly will be liable to Sherry.

Answer-A
There is nothing to suggest that Sherry has a close tie of love and affection for
Leonard therefore it is unlikely that a claim would succeed based on witnessing
his accident. Also, Sherry neither witnessed Rhonda’s accident nor the immediate
aftermath. Thus, she would not succeed.
26. Principle 1: An occupier must take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is
reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the
purpose for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there.

Principle 2: A person is responsible for that which he could have reasonably foreseen
and prevented.

Facts: While Tiger Woods, a middle aged man, was shopping in Value Market, he
slipped and fell on a wet floor in one of the aisles. The floor had recently been
mopped by one of the store’s employees, but there were no signs warning customers
that the floor in that area was wet. As a result of the fall, Woods broke his leg but
since he had diabetes, his leg had to be amputated. Woods claimed that Value
Market’s failure to warn customers of the wet floor constituted negligence and
therefore the market was liable for his leg amputation. Will the court agree with
Woods? Decide.

A) Yes, Woods will succeed in claiming damages for leg amputation as a customer
might fall on a wet floor is a foreseeable risk.
B) No, Woods will not succeed in claiming damages for leg amputation as a
customer might fall on a wet floor is not a foreseeable risk.
C) No, Woods will not succeed in claiming any damages as Value Market’s failure to
warn customers of the wet floor do not constitute negligence.
D) No, Woods will not succeed in claiming damages for leg amputation but only for
a broken leg.

Answer-D
Woods will succeed in a suit for negligence but he will get damages only for a
broken leg and not the fact that it was amputated. This is because value market
could not have reasonably foreseen that woods was diabetic and would therefore
lose his leg.

27. Principle: If you cause injury to a person’s reputation without any lawful justification
the tort of defamation is committed.

Facts: Raghav, who is Dr. Duggal’s patient, is unhappy with the homeopathic
treatment he is receiving from the doctor. He discontinues the treatment within 2
months. His illness disappears by itself after sometime. Raghav is very upset with Dr.
Duggal because the treatment cost him a lot of time. He writes a letter to Dr, Duggal
accusing him of cheating. He claims that Dr. Duggal deliberately extended his
treatment and caused his health to worsen. Dr. Duggal shows this letter to his lawyer
and a lawsuit for defamation is filed. Will it succeed?

A) Yes, Raghav has caused injury to Dr. Duggal’s reputation by accusing him of
extending his treatment.
 B) No, Raghav has given his opinion without any wrongful intention.
C) No, Raghav has not made the statement in private and not to the third party.
D) Yes, Raghav must know that homeopathy is slow to act.

Answer-C
The statement must be published in order to be defamatory.

28. Principle: Damnum Sine Injuria is a maxim, which refers to injury which is being
suffered by the plaintiff but there is no violation of any legal right of a person. In such
circumstances, where there is no violation of the legal right of but the injury, or
damage is being suffered by the plaintiff, the plaintiff can’t bring an action against the
other for the same, as it is not actionable in law, unless there is some infringement of
a legal right is present.

Facts: Mr. Sethi and Mr. Sandhu are adjoining land owners in the Badogh, Shimla.
Mr. Sethi owns and operates “Water farm”, a water park with a rural theme to it. The
business has been very successful over the past five years, attracting large crowds in
the summer owing to the fine weather the south east enjoys. Last autumn, Mr. Sandhu
decided to set up a similar operation and has called his operation “Wet Water
farm”. Mr. Sethi’s attendance numbers have dramatically fallen off this summer with
an estimated loss of profits of Rs. 12,50,000. Mr. Sethi decided to file a suit against
Mr. Sandhu to claim the loss. Decide.

A) Mr. Sethi would succeed as he had to bear the loss of Rs. 12,50,000 caused due to
the setting up of Wet Water Farm.
B) Mr. Sethi would not succeed as he has not suffered any legal injury and thus it is
not actionable claim.
C) Mr. Sethi would succeed as he has suffered legal injury and thus it is an actionable
claim.
D) None of the above..

Answer-B
Even though the Mr. Sethi has suffered losses due to wet water farm but there was
no infringement of any legal right, therefore, Mr. Sandhu can’t be held liable.

29. Principle 1: A person is responsible for those consequences from his actions that are
reasonably foreseeable

Principle 2: According to the strict liability rule, when somebody keeps something on
his property for his benefit, it should not escape and affect others. In case it so
escapes, the owner of that thing must compensate the victim even if he was not
negligent.
 Facts: Niamh and Maebh are neighbours for the last twenty years. Niamh is a regular
summer time barbecue enthusiast which causes Maebh no end of concern because of
the smell and dense plumes of smoke that envelope her garden when the barbecue is
lit and more particularly aggravate Maebh’s mild asthmatic condition. The smoke also
agitates the bees housed in the 20 or so bee hives in Maebh’s garden which causes
them to swarm. After numerous complaints about the barbeque smoke, Maebh
extinguished the barbeque using the water feature. Niamh obtained an injunction to
restrain Maebh from extinguishing the barbeque but Maebh still complains about the
smoke. Recently, Niamh invited his friend to a barbecue. The barbecue caught fire
and exploded. The flying hot charcoals injured Maebh and her garden shed was burnt
to the ground from the ensuing barbecue fire. Maebh filed a suit against Niamh for
causing damage to her property under strict liability. Decide Whether Niamh will be
liable?

A) No, because Niamh did not know that barbeque would catch fire and explode.
B) Yes, because Niamh has brought the dangerous thing on her land and it escaped.
C) No, because barbecue is not a dangerous thing.
D) Yes, because catching fire and exploding of barbecue is a foreseeable situation.

Answer-C
Barbecue is not a dangerous thing. This can be determined from the fact that
Niamh had obtained an injunction to restrain Maebh from extinguishing the
barbeque.

30. Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, as long as

it is without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a
lawful manner by lawful means, with proper care and caution.

Facts: Hari was a building contractor who as infamous for using illegal means to
complete projects. But since he used to pay well, he had thriving business and good
workforce. Hari started using bad quality cement in the construction of his new
project buildings, even though he knew that an accident could occur and put the
labourers in jeopardy. One day, on site, a newly constructed roof collapsed and 2
workers died while 5 were gravely injured. Decide.

A) Hari’s act is an offence.

B) Hari’s act is not an offence as it was an accident.
C) Hari will not be responsible as he was not present at the site at that time.
D) Hari will not be responsible as workers themselves gave consent to work under
Hari.

Answer-A
Hari had the knowledge that accident could occur. He cannot take the defence of
an accident.
 (Instructions: Questions 31 to 34 have common set of principles and facts. Apply the
specified principles and answer the questions.)

Principle 1: No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of the
law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be
subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law
in force at the time of the commission of the offence

Principle 2: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more
than once.

Principle 3: No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness

against himself

Facts: Megha began to gamble in some local pubs of Maharashtra in 1991. Assume
that gambling was not illegal then. In 2018, a law was put in place that made
gambling in any form a criminal offence punishable with simple imprisonment upto 6
years or fine or both. A bookie, Derrick gets caught for being part of an elaborate
gambling ring from 1996. He names Megha as having been a better once. He is
prosecuted in 2018 but let off due to lack of evidence. He is arrested for further
betting in 2019.

31. Can Megha be prosecuted for her role in gambling?

A) Yes
B) No, as per principle 1
C) No, as per principle 2
D) It cannot be determined.

Answer-A
Derrick named Megha. Thus, she can be prosecuted.

32. To whom would Principle 3 apply?

A) Megha
B) Derrick
C) Both a and b
D) None of the above.

Answer-C
Principle 3 is applicable on everyone.

33. Can Derrick be prosecuted in 2019?

 A) Yes
B) No
C) Depends on his prior record.
D) It cannot be determined.

Answer-A
Principle 2 is not applicable in the present situation as he was arrested for further
gambling.

34. Say, Derrick’s accomplice Nehmat was also caught in the gambling scandal in 2019.
She was found guilty. Which of the following punishments may be meted out to him?
A) Fine
B) Rigorous imprisonment of 6 years.
C) Both a and b
D) None of the above.

Answer-A
There is a difference between simple imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment.

35. Principle: All citizens shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of
India subject to reasonable restrictions as according to the Article 19(1)(d).

Facts: Rajshree goes for a walk every morning, but is lately finding that traffic is
increasing. So, he decides to go for his working walk inside the army cantonment area
in the vicinity of his residence. When he gets there, the guards at the gate refuse to
allow him through, stating that the area is prohibited for civilians and he cannot enter.
Rajshree challenges the action under Article 19(1)(d). Decide.

A) It is not reasonable on the part of the government to earmark green and peaceful
areas as restricted and to restrict entry within these areas.
B) It is unreasonable of the government to think that every person who is entering the
area is a potential security threat.
C) It is a reasonable restriction because it is necessary to preserve the security of the
state.
D) None of the above.

Answer-C
It is not possible for the government to question every person closely before
deciding whether or not they are security threat. Considering that the area is a part
of state’s defence organisation, it is justified in the interest of state security to
restrict the entry of unauthorized person.

36. Principle 1: In case a fundamental right is violated the aggrieved person has the right
to file a petition before the Supreme Court and the Court is empowered to issue a writ
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for
enforcement of such right.

Principle 2: The writ of certiorari is for quashing an order or executive action of

lower authorities or court that violates any fundamental right(s) or is otherwise illegal.
Criminal jurisdiction is vested always with criminal courts where the crime has been
committed.

Facts: A robbery took place in Panipat, Haryana and Ganpat was suspected of being
the mastermind and executor of the robbery. Intelligence agencies informed that
Ganpat is hiding in Lucknow and would be going to meet his girlfriend Sheela very
soon. The location of the meeting was also intimated. The UP Police laid a trap and
arrested Ganpat and after a week’s trial of Ganpat for a robbery committed in Panipat
began before the Sessions Court of Lucknow and the same sentenced him to 20 years
in prison. Ganpat of Lucknow had no jurisdiction to try him as the crime was
allegedly committed in Haryana and prayed for quashing of the sentence. What
should be the decision?

A) A court of law after examination of evidence has convicted Ganpat. His

conviction is proper and legal and must be allowed to stand.
B) After being convicted by a court of law in Lucknow which afforded him full
opportunity to defend himself, Ganpat is now only trying to find legal
technicalities to escape punishment.
C) Ganpat shall fail because this objection was to be taken before the trial began. He
willingly sat through the trial and now cannot object to the result.
D) Ganpat shall succeed because only the criminal courts in Panipat, Haryana had
jurisdiction to try him and Lucknow court’s decision is wrong because it had no
power to punish Ganpat. Accordingly, the Supreme Court shall issue a certiorari
to quash the sentence of the Lucknow court.

Answer-D
The crime was committed in Panipat, Haryana and therefore the courts of Panipat
will have jurisdiction. Lucknow court’s order suffered from this basis infirmity
and therefore will be quashed by ordering a certiorari.

(Instructions: Questions 37 to 38 have common set of principles and facts. Apply the
specified principles and answer the questions.)

Principle 1: Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the
matters enumerated in List I (referred to as the Union List)

Principle 2: The Legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws for such
State or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II
(referred to as the State List).
 Principle 3: The Legislature of any State also, have power to make laws with respect
to any of the matters enumerated in List III (referred to as the Concurrent List)

Principle 4: Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any
part of the territory of India not included in a State notwithstanding that such matter is
a matter enumerated in the State List.

Principle 5: Union List contains the following matters – Defence, Extradition,

Railways, Airways, Census, etc. State List contains the following matters – Public
order, police, public health, land, fisheries, etc. Concurrent List contains the following
matters – Criminal law, Forests, Education, etc.

Facts: Indian Government had been warning the Pakistan Government to curtail the
ongoing rebellion in the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir region as it was having a serious
impact on the peace of adjoining Kashmir. The Pakistan Government kept ignoring
the instructions given to it by the Government of India as they considered such
instructions as an impingement of their sovereignty. As a consequence, a bloody war
broke out between India and Pakistan. The Indian soldiers with their unmatched skill
and armoury ended up capturing the territory of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK).

37. The people of PoK have expressed their allegiance to the Indian State and as such
want to be regulated by the laws of India. They ask the Government of India to make
certain criminal laws for them as the area is completely lawless. Who can make laws
on criminal matters for the PoK region?

A) Parliament in view of Proposition of law 1.

B) Both Parliament and State Legislature in view of Proposition of law 3.
C) Only State Legislature in view of Proposition of Law 2.
D) Parliament in view of Proposition of Law 4.

Answer-B
Criminal law is contained in the concurrent list. As per principle 3, both parliament
and state legislature can make law on this subject.

38. The people of PoK have requested the Government of India to make laws regarding
education of their children as most of the children of this region are uneducated and
have never attended primary or secondary schooling. Who has the power to make
laws on the aforesaid subject?

A) Parliament in view of Proposition of law 1.

B) Both Parliament and State Legislature in view of Proposition of law 3.
C) Only State Legislature in view of Proposition of Law 2.
D) Parliament in view of Proposition of Law 4.
 Answer-B
Education Criminal law is contained in the concurrent list. As per principle 3, both
parliament and state legislature can make law on this subject.

39. Principle 1: If the President is satisfied on the basis of a report received by the
Governor of a State or otherwise that a situation has arisen in which the government
of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution, the same may proclaim emergency and assume all legislative and
executive powers of the State Government.

Principle 2: If the President is satisfied, with or without a report by the Governor of a

given State that in such State, Government cannot function in accordance with the
Constitution, he may dismiss the State Legislative Assembly and the State
Government and assume all such power himself. The President must have some
material to entertain the belief that State Government cannot function in accordance
with the Constitution. It is not permissible to go into correctness or adequacy of the
material.

Facts: President Harsih received a report from the Governor of State of Taxas that the
State Government might not be able to function in accordance with the Constitution.
Subsequently, the President received some other sensitive reports on the issue that
also concluded that the State Government is not in a position to work in accordance
with the Constitution. Finally he got to know that the Governor of the State and the
Chief Minister do not enjoy good relations and are in fact extremely bitter of each
other. The President decided to impose emergency and dissolve the State Legislature
and Government. Decide whether this imposition is in accordance with the principle.

A) The imposition is wrong because the President clearly knew that Governor has a
personal bias in recommending to the President to dismiss the Government of the
Chief Minister with whom he does not enjoy good relations.
B) The imposition is wrong because there was not enough material to entertain the
belief that State Government cannot be run in accordance with the Constitution.
C) The imposition is correct because there was enough relevant material with the
President to satisfy himself of the situation of the State.
D) The President should have invited the Governor and the Chief Minister to his
house for drinks and should have tried to solve the problem with dialogue.

Answer-C
As long as the President has some relevant material with him it cannot be
concluded that his belief was based on nothing. Correctness or adequacy of
material cannot be called into question; thus the only deciding criterion is
presence of some relevant material which is clearly the case here.
40. Principle: The Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal
from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter
passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

Facts: Election of Bhim Singh to State Legislative Assembly was set aside by the
Election Tribunal under Section 123 of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951.
There is no provision for appeal under the Act. The Supreme Court of India is
approached under Article 136. In such a situation which one of the following is
correct?

A) Order of tribunal is final as there is no provision for appeal against its order.
B) Supreme Court has unfettered powers to entertain any appeal from any court or
Tribunal under Article 136
C) Law does not empower Supreme Court to interfere in election matters.
D) Only State Legislature is competent to overrule the order of the tribunal.

Answer-B
The Supreme Court can grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree,
determination, sentence or order.

41. What is meant by the Legal Maxim/word “praesumptio innocentiae”?

A) Presumption of Guilt
B) Presumption of Innocence
C) Presumption of Intent
D) Presumption of Inner morality

Answer- B
The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is considered
innocent unless proven guilty.

42. What is meant by the Legal Maxim/word “non bis in idem”?

A) Not in the same sense
B) Not in the same Idiom
C) Not in the same court
D) Not twice in the same

Answer- D
Prohibition against double jeopardy. A legal action cannot be brought twice for
the same act or offense.

43. What is meant by the Legal Maxim/word “mortis causa”?

A) Mortal cause
B) Contemplation on death bed
C) Gift made from death bed
D) Reason for death
 Answer- B
In Latin this legal word means “In contemplation of approaching death”. A
phrase sometimes used in reference to a deathbed gift, or a gift causa mortis,
since the giving of the gift is made in expectation of approaching death. A gift
causa mortis is distinguishable from a gift inter vivos, which is a gift made during
the donor's (the giver's) lifetime.

44. Which of the following is the closest in meaning to the legal maxim res communes?
A) Whence there is truth, there is light.
B) Things belonging to no body.
C) Things belonging to everybody.
D) Rest of the communities.

Answer-C
Res communes is a Roman & civil law concept. It means things owned by no one
and subject to use by all. Things (as light, air, the sea, running water) are incapable
of entire exclusive appropriation and are considered as subject of Res communes.

45. What is meant by "doli incapax"?

A) Incapable of crime
B) A new judgement
C) New bye law
D) A good decision

Answer-A
Doli Incapax is a Latin term that means “incapable of doing harm”. This term has
been used to describe a presumption of innocence for children in Criminal law in
most countries. The basis of this presumption lies in the theory of Criminal
responsibility.

46. In which landmark legal case it was held that preamble is not a part of the Indian
Constitution?
A) Berubari Union(I), Re
B) Keshavnanada Bharti v. State of Kerala
C) S.R Bommai v. Union of India
D) T.M.A Pai v. Union of India

Answer-A
This judgement was overruled by 13 Judge Bench in Keshvananda Bharti case and
it was held that the ‘Preamble is part of Indian Constitution’.

47. Which important landmark case led to the First amendment of the Indian
Constitution?
A) A.K Goplan v. State of Madras
B) Naiku v. State of Maharashtra
C) Jeevan deep Singh v. State of Punjab
D) Champakam Dorairjan v. State of Madras
 Answer-D

48. In which Landmark case the Supreme Court held that Muslim women have the right
to maintenance?
A) Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
B) Mohammed Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum
C) Hussainara khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar
D) Sher singh v. State of Haryana.

Answer-B
In M. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum the Supreme Court held that Muslim
Women has the right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. the
Remedy under Section 125 is available to wife (including a divorced wife),
irrespective of the religion to which she belongs.

49. Which case led to the end of jury trials in India?

A) M. Nanavati v State of Maharashtra
B) Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala
C) State of Uttar Pradesh v Raj Narain
D) State of Rajasthan v Vidhyawati

Answer-A

50. In which important landmark case the neighbour principle was established in the tort
of negligence?
A) Balfour v Balfour
B) Hedley Byrne v Heller
C) Marbury v Madison
D) Donoghue v Stevenson

Answer-D